TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 4, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Nine local, state, tribal and federal agencies are highly critical of the latest Forest Service analysis of the proposed Rosemont open-pit copper mine according to written comments released last week. The depth and breadth of the criticisms, along with previous demands from political leaders, raise doubts about the credibility of the Forest Service’s environmental analysis of the proposed Rosemont mine, thus leaving a significant cloud of uncertainty over the project according to Save the Scenic Santa Ritas (SSSR).

Below are examples of some of the agency comments – (complete versions of the agency comments are below.)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE): Rosemont cannot begin work unless it receives a COE permit allowing it to pollute area waterways and establishing mitigation measures to compensate for the damage. The Corps is highly critical of the Forest Service’s characterization of the mitigation measures proposed by Rosemont.

Not only will the Corps not be accepting the [mitigation] parcels [proposed by Rosemont] but there has been no scientific determination that acquisition and protection of these parcels or [the Sonoita Creek Ranch also proposed by Rosemont] would “effectively mitigate impacts to surface waters.”

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA gave the Rosemont draft EIS the lowest possible rating. It also has final say, and veto authority, over any water pollution permit for the mine issued by the Corps of Engineers.

[T]he proposed project continues to present serious environmental issues, and EPA has identified significant information gaps that should be resolved prior to publication of the EIS for further public review….Based on the information currently available to EPA, the proposed project will result in significant degradation to waters, including the “Outstanding Waters” of Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ): The ADEQ regulates pollution of Arizona’s air and water. Ironically, the agency essentially rubber-stamped Rosemont’s air and water pollution permits, but in comments to the Forest Service, they leveled serious criticisms on the latest draft EIS.

[T]he conclusion that the mine can meet surface water standards is premature…. [T]he concluding statement “…there is little likelihood that existing water quality in Davidson Canyon or Lower Cienega Creek would be affected” is inaccurate.

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory: The Smithsonian Institution owns and operates the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory, a world-class astronomy research facility located on the Coronado National Forest about 12-miles from the mine site.

Adverse impacts on dark skies would result in an impairment of observatories near the project area, which would result in a decrease in State revenues generated from astronomy, space, and planetary research and tourism…In addition the negative public perception of having a copper mine next to an observatory has already impacted future observatory revenues, particularly diversion of future leading edge projects to other “darker” locations. (emphasis added

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas is a non-profit, community organization of ranchers, residents and businesses working to protect the Santa Rita and Patagonia Mountains from environmental degradation caused by mining and mineral exploration activities.

SOURCE Save the Scenic Santa Ritas

RELATED LINKS
http://www.scenicsantaritas.org

Below are the recently filed comments by Cooperating Agencies on the administrative draft of the Rosemont Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona State Parks

Arizona Geologic Survey

Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Protection Agency

National Park Service – Air Division

National Park Service – Intermountain Region

Pima County

Smithsonian Institution

Tohono O’odham Nation

Town of Sahuarita

US Army Corps of Engineers

The Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the proposed Rosemont Mine

Last week, the Forest Service released an “Administrative Draft of the Final Environmental Impact (FEIS)” for the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine. Notwithstanding Rosemont’s pronouncements that the approvals for the mine are a done deal, there is a long way to go. In fact, the Forest Service goes to great lengths to indicating that this draft is missing key analyses and permits required under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Remarkably it requires website users to affirmatively acknowlege a disclaimer that this document is missing these essential elements.

The latest draft does contain, however, a list of more than a dozen “unavoidable adverse impacts” to southern Arizona’s economy and environment that would be caused if the Rosemont Mine were allowed to proceed. They include:

• Socioeconomics: “Loss of jobs in the local tourism and outdoor recreation industries cannot be avoided or fully mitigated. Likewise, loss in property values for property close to the mine would constitute an impact that cannot be avoided or fully mitigated.”
• Groundwater Quantity: “[R]eductions resulting from the hydraulic sink created by the pit lake would constitute a permanent adverse impact that cannot be avoided.
• Surface Water Quantity: “The amount of surface water that would flow into drainages immediately downstream of the mine site would be permanently decreased, constituting a permanent adverse impact that cannot be avoided or completely mitigated.”
• Seeps, Springs and Riparian Areas: “The loss of seeps and springs and associated riparian areas constitutes a permanent adverse impact that cannot be avoided or completely mitigated.”
• Public Health and Safety: “The mine and associated activities are expected to increase risks to public health and safety, primarily from increased traffic and associated risk of additional traffic accidents.”
• Dark Skies: “Residual impacts from mine lighting “would remain that are not avoidable and cannot be completely mitigated.”
• Recreation and Wilderness: “Recreation use of the area would be permanently adversely impacted.”
• Cultural Resources: “Cultural resources and historic properties and uses would be directly and permanently impacted. These impacts cannot be avoided within the areas of direct impact, nor can they be fully mitigated.”

But as further indication of how far this document has to go, the Unavoidable Impacts section of the document does not include any discussion of groundwater quality or surface water quality impacts.